LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 29 , Issue 4
July/August 2016

Pages 340–350


Parallel Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders Treated with a CAD/CAM Versus a Conventional Stabilization Splint

Jean Marc Pho Duc, Dr Med Dent/Sandra Vargas Hüning, DDS, MS, PhD/Márcio Lima Grossi, DDS, MS, PhD


PMID: 27479339
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4711

Purpose: This parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy of a computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) splint versus a conventional stabilization splint in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Materials and Methods: A sample of 48 age-matched TMD patients from the Ludwig Maximilian University Prosthodontic Department in Munich, Germany, were randomly allocated into groups 1 (CAD/CAM splint) and 2 (conventional splint). The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) was used for TMD Axis I (groups I, II, and III) and Axis II (chronic pain grade [CPG]) diagnoses. Numeric scales (TMD/NS, 10 cm) were used to measure headaches, face pain, jaw joint pain, jaw joint noises, mastication pain, neck pain, face tension, limitation of mouth opening, complaints during mastication, and teeth sensitivity at baseline and then monthly for 9 months (T₁ to T₁₀). Optical axiography was used to measure right and left condyle movements (mm) at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months (T₁, T₄, and T₇). Results: A total of 32 patients (drop-out rate = 33%; 68.75% women; 28.51 ± 7.13 years old), 16 per group, completed the study. RDC/TMD Axis I showed the following diagnoses: 93.75% muscle disorders, 37.75% disc displacement with reduction, 3.12% disc displacement without reduction, and 56.25% arthralgia. There was a significant reduction in 10 out of 13 items of the TMD/NS in the CAD/ CAM splint versus 8 out of 13 in the conventional splint. However, no significant improvement in mandibular movements (ie, increase in range of motion and reduction in asymmetry between right and left condyles) was observed. Conclusion: Both treatments were equally efficacious and no difference was found between them.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2019 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help